The questions of the Shari’a law and its application in the modern European states have been discussed a lot in the recent years. However, the matter still remains unclear. This paper aims to discuss the issue based on the movie “When We Leave” and the class readings.
Shari’a Law
The Islamic law is complicated. It consists of Shari’a – a set of religious commandments each Muslim must follow, and fiqh – the interpretations of those religious teachings. Shari’a is the center of the legal practices, but it can be applied differently in different cases (“Islamic Law: Europe’s Shari’a Debate” 1). Many principles of Shari’a are controversial. They establish strict patriarchal relationships within the society, promote discrimination and justify honor killings. However, it still is an inseparable part of the immigrants’ culture and their lifestyle. The problems of just leaving the immigrant communities unattended are demonstrated well in the movie “When We Leave” describing a situation when a family is essentially shattered by the conflict between the traditional values and the basic human rights (When We Leave). The tension between two legal systems can lead to tragedies, and the governments must take actions to mediate the situation.
Legal Contradictions
One of the most common misconceptions about the Shari’a law is that they fully contradict the human rights and the secular values widespread in the Western Europe. That is only partially true. The application of the Shari’a law differs widely from country to country and even tribe to tribe. Some of the Muslims do follow the religious rules dictating gender inequality and harsh, inhumane punishments. However, most of the Islamic states deviate from the strict Shari’a code in one way or another. That leads to different migrants having different views of how their community should operate. This, in turn, means that some of these interpretations are largely in line with the general law of the European countries. It also creates a huge problem for people trying to determine what the immigrants actually want. It is impossible to create and maintain separate laws for different groups of people living in the same country, so most governments try to satisfy the needs of the immigrants without violating the basic principles of their own societies. So far, it seems the progress is slow, and no real solution exists.
Women in Islam
The position of women in the traditional Islamic society is one of the most discussed points of disagreement in the immigrant discussions. While in countries like Turkey, the women have been largely emancipated, and their position is close to the position of women in the Western European countries, in places like Pakistan discrimination is still widespread (Binder and Richman par. 15). It is not uncommon for a woman to be unable to press charges against a rapist. Since many of the immigrants come from such places, they follow the ways of their culture. That contradicts the principles of human rights accepted across Europe. Ridiculously, the attempts of the French government to amend the situation by banning hijabs were discriminatory in their own right since some women actually prefer that sort of headwear. This situation also remains unresolved in most countries.
Conclusion
Immigrant communities will continue to follow their own values regardless of any governmental decisions. The society is already starting to acclimate to this reality by offering Muslim-specific services. However, on the political level, there seems to be no evident solution to the conflict of values going on in Europe.
Works Cited
Binder, Charlotte, and Natalie Richman. “Feminist Movements in Turkey”. Amargi Istanbul. Web.
“Islamic Law: Europe’s Shari’a Debate”. Euro-Islam 2016. Web.
When We Leave. Ex. Prod. Feo Aladag. Germany. 2010. DVD.